ORDER : B. VEERAPPA, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 16.12.2016 rejecting the application filed under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the case for the evidence of the plaintiff to recall the PW-1 to exhibit the document on his behalf and application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for filing additional documents, made in O.S.No.129/2013 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri. 2. The petitioner herein filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing katha No. 2165/612, old katha No. 338 measuring 10 x 10 yards i.e., 30 ft. x 30ft. which is a open space with a well, contending that the suit schedule property belonged to the great grandfather of the petitioner by name Mathada Murigeppa alias Mathada Murigaiah who executed a Will in favour of the father of the petitioner to look after the suit schedule property and after the death of the petitioner's father, petitioner is looking after the property and he is in possession and enjoyment of same etc. 3. The defendant filed written statement, denied the entire plaint averments contending that suit schedule property does not belongs to the plaintiff and no material document is produced to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is Government panchayath property. The property was conveyed as mortgage deed on 03.05.1948 through SR No. 1279/47-48 from Siddalingaiah in favour of Shivanna which shows that towards western side of the property, the property belonging to Government is situated. Therefore plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest in respect of the suit schedule property and further contended that the identity of the property is in dispute and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Therefore plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest in respect of the suit schedule property and further contended that the identity of the property is in dispute and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. When the matter was posted for further arguments of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an application under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 for the purpose of exhibiting documents and another application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to file additional documents contending that the documents sought to be produced were misplaced in his counsel's office and were traced out recently and they are necessary documents to support his case and the delay in production of the documents is unintentional and for bona fide reasons, etc. The said applications was resisted by the defendant by filing objections specifically contending that the documents sought to be produced are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and applications are filed only to drag the proceedings and the applications filed when the matter is posted for further arguments of the plaintiff are not maintainable as highly belated and therefore liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 rejected the applications on the ground that the documents are filed by the plaintiff only with a view to fill up the lacuna and drag on the matter and the documents sought to be produced are not related to the suit schedule property. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri. G. S. Chidambara, learned counsel for Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Trial Court rejected the applications without considering the fact that the documents now sought to be produced are necessary to support his case. Mere allowing of the applications will no way prejudice the case of the defendant and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the applications on technical grounds. The documents sought to be produced are necessary to dissolve the dispute between the parties and therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions. 8. Per contra, Sri. Mere allowing of the applications will no way prejudice the case of the defendant and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the applications on technical grounds. The documents sought to be produced are necessary to dissolve the dispute between the parties and therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions. 8. Per contra, Sri. Aruna A. Gadag, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and strenuously contended that the present applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff after completion of arguments of plaintiff in part are only to drag the proceedings and admittedly the documents have nothing to do with the present suit schedule property. They are entirely different. Learned counsel contended that the suit was filed in the year, 2013 and applications are filed only to drag on the proceeding and therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: 'Whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the applications filed by the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances of the case.' 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 11. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property belonged to his great grand father and later his grand father and father were in possession and now he is possession of the property. He filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and now he wants to produce some documents to show his possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The defendant specifically contended that the property belongs to the Government and plaintiff has got no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. 12. The controversy between the parties has to be adjudicated by the Trial Court after completion of the trial. It is not in dispute that when the matter was posted for further arguments of the plaintiff, he filed applications contending that the documents are relevant to establish his case. The applications were opposed by the defendants contending that they are filed only to drag the proceedings. 13. It is not in dispute that when the matter was posted for further arguments of the plaintiff, he filed applications contending that the documents are relevant to establish his case. The applications were opposed by the defendants contending that they are filed only to drag the proceedings. 13. In a suit for bare injunction, it is always open for the plaintiff to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of the suit. The defendants specifically contended that it is a Government panchayath property and does not belongs to the plaintiff. Now plaintiff has filed certain documents to show that he is in possession of the property. Though the said documents are disputed by the defendant, if the documents are allowed and plaintiff is permitted to adduce evidence and defendant is permitted to cross examine the plaintiff, no pre-judice will be caused to the defendant. 14. The Trial Court rejected the applications mainly on the ground that the documents sought to be produced are no way concerned to the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that katha No. 2165/612 and katha No. 612, assessment No. 1028 are one and the same. It is for the plaintiff to prove it. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court has to be set-aside to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to put-forth his case on the next date of hearing without seeking further adjournment. 15. For the reasons stated above, the point raised for consideration has to be held in the negative holding that the Trial Court is not justified in rejecting the applications filed by the plaintiff. 16. In view of the same, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.2016, passed in O.S.No.129/2013 is set-aside. It is appropriate to impose some reasonable cost for dragging the proceeding. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, cost of Rs. 6,000/- is imposed payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. 17. It is made clear that the plaintiff is permitted to reopen the case and recall evidence of P.W.1 on the next date of hearing without seeking adjournment. On the same day or the next day, the defendant has to cross-examine the P.W.1. On such examination, the Trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.